Posted on 08/18/2015 6:39:22 AM PDT by xzins
Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second conditional phrase is conveniently misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The State Department has interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone regardless of whether their parents are here illegally ... birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The 14th amendment clearly says “subject to the jurisdiction”. Therefore, Congress can move on this without any amendment. Good news.
Now, let’s have them do it.
This piece serves to reinforce that which all here already knew
YES !!!
Excellent catch, my FRiend!
The 14th was meant for freed slaves, and since emancipation was 150 years ago, is no longer necessary and should be repealed.
There are no slaves in America anymore (unless you count the ones the muzzies bring in!)
There are no slaves in America anymore
You might want to speak to my Uncle about that, he Takes more than 50% of my Daily Output, I think that qualifies as me being a Slave. His name Is Sam by the Way!
I agree with this interpretation of “... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ...”.
But we need some legal-eagle Freeper to give us a little insight into the way the Supreme Court of Our Masters has interpreted the 14th.
I’m betting that news will not be good.
My understanding on this has been that the US doesn’t NOT automatically give US citizenship to children born here whose parents are foreign diplomats, but I have yet to hear a Republican point this out.
This contradicts the claim that US constitution must be changed.
Given Obama’s history it could be done by executive order.
Obama never modified the constitition to get all his stuff done.
Have heard this opinion before (in Jr high civics class)
Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.
Spakovsky is a very good writer and luminary. I respect his opinions and findings immensely.
He’s absolutely right about this. But again as with other amendments, the writing of the amendment is poor because there is never any authority delineated to determine and execute certain phrases. The phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ can only be enforced by a government body and no government body is specified. State offices issuing birth certificates have defaulted to issuing BCs for any child born on American soil. There are no statutes that require state offices to determine how to execute and enforce the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’.
When new amendments are drafted, especially from the forthcoming Article V Convention of States, the drafters must think and work to write enabling language to each proposed amendment. Otherwise, abuse of new amendments will surely ensue regardless of the amendment’s meaning and intent. The 14th Amendment is a prime example of how certain groups take advantage of poorly crafted words by ignoring certain phrases or by injecting new meaning and intent in derived rulings.
Ha! Like that will ever happen.
... subject to the jurisdiction thereof...
Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the Court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the Court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
Yet children of diplomats are not extended citizenship.
The 14th is very clear about birthright citizenship. I dont agree with it but to change it, it will require a change to the 14th amendment.
I preference would be a meritocracy where there are different rights for different people based upon the individual earning those rights. As Heinlein postulate in Starship Troopers, “Service brings citizenship.”
At the top would be a citizen who has full rights. Then there would be residents who do not have full rights (voting only in state elections, not allowed to serve as an officer in the government, etc) but retain many rights. Then there would other classification for aliens, prisoners and slaves (yes I said slaves), each with fewer rights.
Before everyone gets their panties in a wad, slaves would be limited to those who have been convicted of a crime and sentenced to either death or life without parole. Those slaves would not have but a very few rights (no voting, no property ownership, etc).
[flame suit on]
I'm pretty sure the federal courts (possibly the SCOTUS) have ruled that birthright is the law. Over turning precedent with judges that always lean to the left will be impossible. Also, the courts will never allow USA citizens that have committed no crimes to be deported.
Getting a constitutional amendment won't happen. The Rats control too many states and seats.
In order to get anything done on immigration, other than by executive fiat, we are going to have to figure out what to do with the illegal alien parents of children born here. Can we deport them if the children are 18 and older?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.